Politics. Sex. Science. Art. You know, the good stuff.

About Stephanie Zvan

Stephanie Zvan is the producer of The Humanist Hour podcast. She's also one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

Meta

I, Hypocrite?

Still in the middle of a couple of insanely busy weeks, but I’m enjoying them immensely, due in no small part to my honeymooning Canuckistanian friends. I’m terribly sad CONvergence is done, as intense as it was, and I’m missing too many people terribly already. Hooray for TAM coming up.

Something interesting happened while I was busy, though. I discovered someone was talking about me. Several someones in fact. The bits I found interesting:

Right, completely unrelated dumbass….did you miss the participation in each tale by Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan? The point, for the slow types, is their hilariously self-serving hypocrisy. Such arbitrary standards of conduct make it clear they don’t believe a damn bit of their structural and linguistic critique. It is being deployed disingenuously and need never be taken seriously as an argument.

What it is ABOUT is that THESE SAME PEOPLE (Greg and Stephanie Z. particularly, but there are others too) who are now reveling and celebrating their meanness in this episode were, just barely a week before this hit the tubes, finger-wagging and attacking Zuska and Isis for being ZOMG SO MEEN to GMP, and calling them “internet bullies” and suggesting that feminist bloggers should be nice or STFU.

THAT’s what it’s about. What sockmaster did was douchy and reprehensible, and no one is objecting him taken down or being taken to task. However, when some of THESE SAME PEOPLE judge and attack Zuska and Isis for being less than sweet to someone whose thoughtless casual racism had actual effects IN REAL LIFE, it is what’s called “hypocrisy”.

Interesting, of course, because, um…WTF? So I asked for specifics of said hypocrisy. The responses? DeviantOne decided that these two statements were incompatible:

Yes, social interaction is really a sporting competition, that kid who dared to go up to the jock table at lunch had it coming, people should really have something better to do than think about people’s feelings, nobody down the totem pole a bit ever has any power over those further down, and the popular kids have a responsibility to show everyone else how they don’t measure up to local, temporary standards. Did I miss anything?

No, I really don’t miss junior high school.

Oedipus, thanks for the zip file. I really wanted those comments from the puppets to hang around. There’s a certain argument to be made that we are the people we act like when we think no one’s looking, and I think people ought to know who they’re offering support to when they tell YNH to keep blogging.

And skeptifem pointed at a thread where she claimed I both objected to being called Greg’s sidekick (as a belittling gendered insult) and defended Greg calling someone a bitch. Of course, what I actually did was agree with someone who objected to a third party (not Greg) calling someone a bitch.

She also, as far as I can tell, seems to think that if I suggest that some defenses of uses of power happen at a junior high reasoning level (power has an on/off switch, someone asking a favor of a person with more power deserves whatever they get) andI suggest that efforts to reduce your effective power when disagreeing with someone isn’t typical high school bullying behavior, I’m a hypocrite because both conversations involve school references.

Since that point, the hypocrisy discussion has basically dried up in favor of talking about how badmy writing is (and, of course, the obligatory “this woman I’m disagreeing with must actually be controlled by a guy” moment). So, what do you think? About me, that is–I’m not looking for another round of “So and so’s a creep.” Whether you think it applies in this situation or not, Zuska has a point about gendered standards for behavior.

Today’s question: Am I being hypocritical in the stances I’ve actually taken in this (as opposed to those taken by someone in the same thread I’ve been in? And if I am, where specifically does this hypocrisy lie?

Share this:

About the author

Stephanie Zvan is the producer of The Humanist Hour podcast. She's also one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

That was Zuska's last stand. I stopped commenting on her stuff or responding to her last round. Several others have as well. I actually had Facebook friends asking me to not point to Zuska posts again because they were so disgusted with her shit that they did not want to even see her name.Feminists from around the world regret the existence of skeptifem. Frankly, I have a guess that she is a poe.

Hey, I've been away for a while and am totally out of it – so I have a question and then I'll try and catch up on my own. Who is the blogger that was pretending to be a girl – was it this Zuska person?I don't read that blog. I can barely keep up with the one's I do read.

Oh come on girl, you know you're just some sock puppet for your husband… Give up the charade! 🙂 Anyhow, WTF is happening in the blogging world? I am sort of glad I only have to deal with the occasional religious nutter woo woo wackaloon.I'm excited for TAM, I can't wait to see you guys. I think it's going to be a freakin' blast!!!

I can't read these threads any more, or read those blogs. I've had enough of it. I can't focus enough on your question Stephanie, about hypocrisy, because I'm too distracted by yet another attack on internet people I respect by certain bloggers with no credibility left. Is it possible to tell someone off for being too mean, and at the same time celebrate ones own meanness? Yes, of course, and it isn't hypocrisy, but simply seeing the world as it is – shades of grey and degrees of severity rather than simple black and white. So I'd rather not read this post in more detail thanks! (sorry – am reposting comment as I deleted first attempt – issues with multiple google accounts on same computer)

Yeah greg, you just passive aggressively insult her on your blog without naming or linking to her. Oh, and you show up on other places on SB to insult her. What is so funny about all this is that even after multiple people specifically saying so in the comments, you all insist that the post was about you and YNH rather than accusations of bullying being applied unequally. Zuska and others said so specifically in the comments. It has been explained. Pretending it hasn't so that you can be victims is dishonest. Socque puppet and I are the only ones who had anything to say about stephanie specifically and answered her questions about what we perceived to be hypocritical. There are plenty of people on the never ending thread on pharyngula discussing the whole Salty current debacle who had the exact same perception as I did about stephanie's behavior. I am not some crazy outlier in my opinion on this matter, but nice try.

Am I being hypocritical in the stances I've actually taken in this (as opposed to those taken by someone in the same thread I've been in?Of course you are. TTBOMK you're human. The only way to avoid hypocrisy is to have a totally complete and self-consistent set of beliefs and standards — which is incompatible with anything resembling a search for truth or self-improvement.I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt on the "search for truth and self-improvement." So far you haven't given me reason to change my mind.And if I am, where specifically does this hypocrisy lie?Damn if I know. I'm sure if I made a project of searching for some I could find it, especially if I charted out all of the possible alternative readings of any ambiguities, colloquialisms, rhetorical shortcuts, sarcasm, etc.

I think the thing that saves you from hypocrisy, Stephanie, is that you are right.Scenario #1– Male blogger posts on a scientific paper about pornography. Male blogger is met with derision, non-scientific attacks on his statements, personal attacks on his character. It was a mean-hearted attack on his good-faith post.You think the attack on Male Blogger #1 is wrong.Scenario #2– Male blogger lies, manipulates comments/statements, personally attacks people, has a vendetta against a female blogger and justifies his obsession and sexist comments with 'one of us is a girl'. No posts were made by this blogger in good faith. It was all a show. People who criticized this blogger originally made good-faith attempts at dialogue.You think an attack on Male Blogger #2 is justified.These two scenarios are polar opposites, thus it is possible to hold two 'contradictory' opinions without being a hypocrite.Also, LOL, Will from Alabama actually admitted he messed up and is sorry, a feat the SciBlog Short-Bus has never managed to do when *they* royally fuck up. LOL. I like Will more than Zuska, LOL!

ERV spells the difference in the two situations out well. Having read everything Zuska linked to, I still didn't get that the point of the post was about Greg and yourself Stephanie, until skeptifem spelled it out. It was a confusing post to me, and I'm not surprised that it was to others as well.

I'm more confuzzled than the last time I tried to catch up on General Hospital. This is why I am reluctant to enter the fray, no matter how much fun it may be to tweak noses. I can't keep track of all the noses, much less which ones to tweak. I tried to go back through the posts and the comments and I just don't get it. I fail to see anything hypocritical. Usually I can find something fun in a given blogdrama, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Can't we just go back to calling each other names or making dick jokes? That's much more my element. 🙂

Sob! Greg has stopped commenting on my posts! Others have stopped reading the Blog No One Reads! ERV, defender of Men's Right To Porn and mocker of the developmentally disabled, does not like me! How ever shall I go on????Stephanie, are you really inviting your readers to honestly let you know if they think you behaved in a hypocritical manner? Or are you just hoping to hear a chorus of "nuh uh, no way, you are the best!!!" Is anyone 100% consistent 100% of the time? I think Becca's comment gets at the truth. Though I thought we were friends.